A Comet Grazing the Sun

The problem between Einstein and myself was always the same, and we were
equally obstinate: he because the mathematical model coincided with such
unimaginable precision with the natural events, nowhere better observable
than in the celestial sphere with the planets and their satellites on
the prescribed paths; I, because it appeared to me that these exact coincidences
between theory and nature had been achieved at the cost of a grievous
omissionof electrical charges and fields. Natural catastrophes which
I discovered to have taken place were my starting point, but these catastrophes
were denied, and my description of the phenomena that accompanied them
evoked the accusation that I had committed an outrage against the entire
house of science. Yet even independently of what I read in ancient sources,
historical or legendary, the picture of the solar system in which electricity
and magnetism were absent and denied a role was strange to me. Once I
read that the Jewish people produced the geniuses of Marx, Freud, and
Einsteinthe three men who so greatly influenced the world of todaybecause
by the nineteenth century the Jewish people was mature in intellect, yet
foreign to European scientific thought, and entered this domain when no
longer novices in the house of learning, therefore more given to criticism,
skepticism, and an original grasp of the content. If I saw things differently,
it was possibly because I came in conflict with the accepted notions,
being myself no longer a fledgling; I did not go through the normal process
of studying geology or astronomy as a student in college, accepting everything
on faith, subdued by the assertion that science in our days and since
some time ago is finally on the right track, after periods of ignorance
of the ancients and erroneous ideas of the pre-Newtonian days. I could
not help seeing things differently.

I decided to select a case in which electromagnetic interrelations between
two bodies in the solar system would be more apparent than elsewhere.
Such a case would be in the passage of a comet very close to the sun,
actually grazing the solar corona. In my understanding there would be
a very pronounced case of electromagnetic interaction. Physical science,
or, better, celestial mechanics, forbade such an interpretationand
why? Because as soon as electromagnetism is given right of entry, the
entire solar system with planets and satellites would be engulfed in a
forbidding sweep of forces and interrelations. If a comet that goes through
the corona of the sun experiences some electromagnetic effect, then what
about the same comet a little distance from the sun, before it reaches
perihelion, or the point of nearest approach, or after it passes it? And
if there, too, there should be some electromagnetic effect, then what
about still greater distances and the behavior of cometary tails in general?
Cometary tails, as already mentioned on earlier pages, keep away from
the sun: on approaching the sun the tail moves behind the head of the
comet; at the time the comet circles the sun in perihelion, the tail sweeps
the sky, almost like a stiff rod; and when the head retreats from perihelion
and rushes on its orbit back into space, the tail precedes the head, again
kept away from the sun. The behavior of the cometary tails is not in accord
with what should have been expected on the basis of gravitational forces;
the tails should be attracted to, not repelled by the sun. The problem
was also in the minds of astronomers of the nineteenth century. John Herschel
wrote:

There is beyond any question some profound secret and mystery of nature
concerned in the phenomenon of their tails; the enormous sweep which
it [the tail] makes round the sun in perihelion in the manner of a straight
and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of
the recorded laws of motion.1

But when at the beginning of the present century the Russian physicist,
P. Lebedew, succeeded in demonstrating that light exerts pressure on the
surface it falls upon, in agreement with the postulate of Clerk Maxwell,
he wrote: this result is of importance to astrophysics as furnishing
a much simpler explanation of the repulsive force of the sun than the
hypothetical ones of electrical charges."2

This pressure, or repulsion, is generally much smallerin the case
of the sun 20,000 times lessthan the opposite action of the gravitational
attraction; but calculation shows that on particles of dust of a certain
small diameter the pressure of light will exert a greater force than will
gravitation, and this because gravitation acts according to the mass,
and pressure according to the surface, and a small particle has more surface
in relation to its mass than does a larger particle. Although celestial
mechanicians never really tried to investigate the problem quantitatively,
the explanation was taken over into all textbooks. A quantitative analysis
would show that the force needed to drive particles away from the sun
at the speed observed must be between 200 and 2,000 times more powerful
than the gravitational attraction exerted by the sun, instead of being
20,000 times weaker; (both act as the inverse square of distancelight
and its pressure act four times weaker on an illuminated surface when
the distance from the source of the light is doubled). A comet may have
a tail as long as 100 million miles and thus reach all the distance from
the sun to the terrestrial orbit, or even 200 million miles and thus reach
past the orbit of Mars.

Finally, the cometary tails obviously have on one hand particles larger
than dust grains and on the other hand they contain gases, but it is also
obvious that light cannot drive these larger particles as it drives molecules
of gases, and on this alone the argument capsizesand leaves the
behavior of tails unexplained.

The light of cometary tails is not just the reflected light of the sun;
they glow by their own light, a fact established by spectroscopic analysis.
It appeared to me that the comets are charged bodies, and possibly their
tails and heads carry significantly different charges.

On the other hand the rotating sun, if it is a charged body, must create
a magnetic field. Does not the corona when seen at full eclipse, or with
the help of an occulation disc (coronograph), have the appearance of magnetic
lines of force as they can be traced by the position of iron filings spread
over a Compton paper, in the presence of a magnetic field? Then would
not a comet going through the corona of the sun be subject to electromagnetic
interactions? Further, is not a comet held away from the sun by its magnetic
field? But if comets are subject to electromagnetic forces when close
to the sun, they may be subject to the same forces when at some distance
from the sun, too; and if comets respond to forces besides gravitation,
are not the planets also responsive to somelarge or small or minutebut
some influence emanating from the sun, besides gravitation, namely
of electromagnetic nature? The consequences are innumerable: is space
empty, or filled with fields and influences? This is a question not unlike
the question in theology: Is there or is there not a God? But now I was
like a chess player sitting opposite the world champion, I being just
an amateur, a beginner, plotting my attack. I moved a pawnbut I
placed it in such a position that the champion immediately grasped the
implications of my strategy. Let this move stand, and one by one, the
bishop, the castle, the queen, and the king himself would all be under
attack. The pawn could not be left in its threatening position.

You can take a pawn from the board if you have a piece in position to
do this, and if the consequences will not be harmful; Einstein made his
move. It was contained in the remarks he made to a letter I wrote him
on September 17, though I did not send it until eight weeks later, with
Gina Plungian. I included a note for Miss Dukas. Einsteins handwritten
marginal annotations on my letter are here given as footnotes.

November 12, 1954

Dear Miss Dukas:

Enclosed is a copy of my September letter, retyped double-spaced for
easier reading. At the end of it stands a question which has far-reaching
implications. This is a logical move on my part in our extended discussion,
and when Professor feels inclined to answer and his health permits,
ask him, please, to dictate whatever he has to say to the problem.

With cordial regards

Immanuel Velikovsky

September 17, 1954

Dear Professor Einstein:

May I renew our discussion? At our last long conversation on July 21,
you have acceded that the cause of the global catastrophes of the past
could have been extra-terrestrial.1

You have found the behavior of Lexells comet almost unbelievable.2

The next step in my strategy is to show that the comets do not revolve
as neutral bodies around a neutral sun. I quote from H. Spencer Jones:

"The presence of bright lines in the spectra [of comets] can only
be due to a self-luminous body. . . . the electrical phenomena obtained
by discharge through a Gesslers vacuum tube enable the assertion
to be made with a high degree of probability that the comets self-luminosity
is due not to an actual combustion, but to an electrical phenomenon."3

More facts point to a charged state of the comets. The envelope (coma)
of a comet contracts with the approach to the sun and expands with recession,
though in the heat of the sun the reverse could be expected.4

"There is good evidence that all particles in the comet influence
the motion of each other. The configuration of the streamers in the
tails . . . strongly indicates a mutual repulsion. (N. Bobrovnikoff,
Comets in Astrophysics, ed. Hynek, 1951, p. 328).5

As to the sun: Certainly the formation of coronals over centers
of attraction and sunspots can be caused by the extended electrical
fields of these areas of the sun; just so, coronals can be formed by
the electrical fields about the end of a moving prominence. (E.
Pettit, The Sun and Solar Radiation, ibid., p. 296).6

When prominences on the sun were observed to run one into another,
both prominences participating in the action recoiled violently
. . . Strong electrical fields of the same sign might explain the phenomenon.
(Ibid., p. 297).7

As to the spherical shape of the sun, the measurements were carried
to one hundredth part of a second of an arc, and no departure from spherical
shape was observed ibid., p. 260); the admitted error of observation
could not exceed a tenth of a second.8

Should we now assume that a comet moves in perihelion without experiencing
an electromagnetic effect between itself and the sun? 9

Cordially yours,

Immanuel Velikovsky

1 [E.: I saw at that time no other possibility for a quick
change of climate at any point of the Earths crust. But since
the mobility of the crust as against the main body is probable, so is
an explanation for such phenomena based upon itself much more plausible
than the assumption of an extra-terrestrial cause.]

2 [E.: As far as the comet is concerned, you have unjustly
claimed that it orbited Jupiter for a certain time; this possibility
I disputed. In fact, through disturbance by Jupiter the comet repeatedly
experienced a strong change in its course, without being caught
by Jupiter.]

3 [E: This is very vague and has nothing to do with the
actual problem of motion.]

4 [E: This is a quite superficial way of inference. One
would have first to show that the phenomenon cannot be explained through
an independent movement of the tail, without assumption of specific
forces.]

5 [E: A mere assertion.]

6 [E.: Vague assertion.]

7 [E: This is quite possible with formations which consist
of (one-sided) charged ions.]

8 [E.: Weak explanation! On this one cannot build. It would
be interesting to know what other specialists think of it.]

9 [E.: Yes. Otherwise Keplers third law would not
be valid.]

The best I could wish was that Einstein would cede me the point; and
the next best that he would answer as he did; thus he documented the position
of science on the issue in 1954. Four years will pass and it will be admitted
that the pressure of light cannot, by a factor of 200 to 2,000, be the
cause of the repulsion of the cometary tails3;

the time will come when scientists will think it elementary that a comet
crossing the solar corona could not escape electromagnetic effects; but
by then it will appear self-understood that this is as it should be; and
then I will need to prove that not so long ago different notions prevailed;
and how much easier it will be if a man whose authority is unmatched should
have written the verdict of science on the very document in which I claimed
a divergent view.

Johannes Kepler, mentioned in my letter and in Einsteins notes,
the discoverer of the three laws of planetary motions known by his name,
was a man to whom Einstein felt a special sympathy, even affinity.

I was obstinate. I was determined to face the issue squarely on this
most obvious caseof a comet going through the corona of the sun.
And I had to answer the reference on Einsteins part to Keplerian
laws.

January 11, 1955

[sent January 18]

Dear Professor Einstein:

Am I right or wrong in the following: A comet grazing the sun can experience
an el.-magn. effect without violating Keplers 3rd law,1
because:

1. A static potential difference between the sun and a body on an orbit
would also produce an inverse square relation which can be hidden in
the gravitational effect.2

2. The magnetic component of the effect would produce acceleration.
And actually an unaccounted for acceleration is observed in comets passing
close to the sun; this effect was studied on Comet Encke. (J. Zenneck,
Gravitation in Encyclop. d. Mathem. Wiss. vol. V,
part I, p. 44).

3. Even assuming a comet as a neutral body partly consisting of ionized
gases, and a solar protuberance as a collection of ions of one sign
on a neutral sun, we would have in a grazing comet a conductor passing
through an electrical field.

By the way, Kepler himself regarded the motion of the planets and comets
on ellipses as originating wholly in the sun, and for a time thought
of magnetic action (electricity was not yet known; but Gilberts
book on magnetism already appeared in 1600). Kepler wrote:

Actually Keplers idea of a magnetic field reaching from a primary
to a satellite can be checked as follows:

If the lunar daily librations in latitude follow the rotation of the
polar magnetic field of the earth around the geographical pole, then
the magnetic field of the earth reaches sensitively to the moon. Among
lunar daily librations are some unaccounted for. According to H.T. Stetson
of M.I.T., a magnetic needle slightly follows the sun.

As to Lexells comet: It was removed by Jupiter from a parabolic
orbit to an ellipse of 5½ (five and a half) year period, and
at the next passage it was sent away on a hyperbolic orbit. This I mentioned;
you have thought it impossible, even after reading this in Newcombs
astronomy.3

You have asked me: what do the specialists say about the shape of the
sun. I quote Donald Menzel of Harvard Solar Observatory (Our Sun,
1950, p. 39): but the measures are as likely as not to indicate
a polar diameter greater than the equatorial, which we are indeed
loath to believe.

With all good wishes,

cordially,

Im. Velikovsky

1 [E: No, that would be a miracle. If the forces of the
solar system were of an electrical nature then for instance the following
would occur: if the sun were charged positively, then the earth would
have to be charged negatively, and the moon again positively. The sun
would then repel the moon, so that the moons motion would deviate
considerably from the factual. Keplers third law which connects
periods of revolution and the radii of orbits of planets revolving around
the sun would not be valid because the charge of each of these bodies
would be independent of the charge of one another.]

2 [E: It is not enough for the understanding of Keplers
third law.]

3 [E: No, you have stated that the comet was for a time
captured by Jupiter. Only this I declared impossible.]

Einstein also appended the following postscript to my letter:

Nobody denies electromagnetic effects between the heavenly bodies.
But these are too small to assert themselves upon the observable motions.
With qualitative considerations only, one can achieve nothing against
keen quantitative perceptions.

When an astronomer hears such arguments as yours, and he has not enough
sense of humor, then he necessarily will be angry or rude.

That the sun cannot have any appreciable electrical charge can be seen
from the following elementary consideration. The radiation of the sun
generates positive and negative ions in its atmosphere. If the sun was
originally (for example) positively charged, it would have repelled
the positive ions and hurled them into space. Thereby its positive charge
would be reduced. This process will last until the sun will have lost
its positive charge. This consideration is likewise valid for negative
charge.

The solar radiation produces also enough ions on the surface of the
planets and moons for a charge to disappear in a short time.

Finally, if gravity were of an electrical nature, then a body would
have to lose its weight as soon as it touches the earth, or is brought
into conducting contact with it.

References

Outlines of Astronomy,
p. 406.

Peter Lebedew, An experimental
investigation of the pressure of light, Annual Report of
the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington,
1903), pp. 177-178.